Mageth

So far, I've dissected the following that are "original" to JTurtle, though parts of this are simply rewordings of parts of Craig's article:

and

That last line is kinda funny.

and

There are a few other lines here and there which were simply reworded.

That statement, "FYI, not all of the information on here is from me. Some of it is taken from the work of a certain Christian apologist..." is laughable. There was no real information from you in that post.

DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR

Just in case anyone is a wondering who Paul & Bill is:

http://www.drlamay.com/pecos_bill.htm

http://www.paulbunyantrail.com/talltale.html

Sorry but "vanishing hitchhiker" sounds a little spookyand I didn't want to look him up

Peter Kirby

Yannis: Many if not most scholars support that the mention of Jesus in the writings of Josephus was a forgery, exactly for the purpose of affirming the historicity and impact of Jesus on his era.

capnkirk: There are precisely two references to Jesus in Josephus, and most scholars now agree that they are interpolations inserted by others at a later date, and that there is no way to tell what, if anything, was there beforehand.

PK: I would be interested in expanding my list of writers who have argued that the whole Testimonium (18.3.3) and/or the second reference (20.9.1) to Jesus were interpolated.

I would be especially interested in writers since 1980. Here's a start:

Ken Olson (only the Testimonium discussed)
Twelftree (only the second reference discussed)
G. A. Wells (both rejected)
Earl Doherty (both rejected)
Freke&Gandy (both rejected)

Olson and Twelftree haven't published on the historicity of Jesus. Wells, Doherty, Freke, and Gandy are simultaneously arguing against historicity.

What else has been published since 1980 that disputes whether there was any original Testimonium and/or whether the twentieth book mentioned Jesus (brother of James)?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Zindler...Price...Ellegaard (inferred from the discussion on p232 and the book's conclusions in general)...Liedner...Eisenman (by implication of his thesis, although he accepts the 20.200 reference)....

Pay attention to capnkirk, JT. It's not often the sharks give warning.

Instead of putting up a series of points, perhaps you could start several threads with one point each. That would be tidier and easier to manage for mods and posters. Otherwise the thread will sprawl all over the place.

Also, if you want to participate here -- and we welcome new posters -- it might be a good idea to have read some of the major works listed in the recommended readings. A major New Testament introductory work, like that of conservatives Brown or Johnson, should be considered mandatory.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

First, Herod is placed at the beginning, then the baptist, then Pilate at the end. There are cleat chronological Markers even if no "on x day this occured."

Second, Luke probably just conflated two sets of riots for Jesus' birth . A minor historical mistake on his part. See E.P. Sanders.

Vinnie

Vinnie

For starters go here:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/jesusfaq.html

See only issue 15 which speaksof a ground zero.

Next go here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

This has a stratification of Jesus and Christian sources.


Now please provide a general ground zero for Odysseyus and list your source stratification of Odysseyus texts.

After you do your job we can get into genre and spoecific.

Do any Odysseyus texts consist of movable pericopes that were inherited?

This is just another poor "Robin Hood Comparison."

Vinnie

Vinnie

This is blatantly false. The shorter passage is widely regarded as authentic. Disputing the shorter reference appears to be little more than special pleading. The longer reference (Testimonium Flavianum) is hotly contested for good reason.

The opposite is more likely. Maybe the four mythicist scholars you read favor double interpolation (goes with their grain) but the majority of critical scholars certainly do not favor total interpolation of both passages.

The shorter reference is more important as it mentions James, Jesus' brother as does Mark. We can throw in Paul but the mythicists here like to engage in apologetical harmonizations and wiggle on that one. Jospehus and Mark is sufficient as there is nothing extraordinary about a first century having a brother.

Vinnnie

Vinnie

Yeah. Matthew Mark, Luke and John are reliable at reconstructing what Christianity was like from 70-100 C.E.

Take Mark's portrayal of Jesus' opponents and the nullification of the food laws as one VERY SECURE example of Christians projecting later views back onto the historical Jesus.

But by reliable, if you mean "historically accurate" then no. The Gospel of John least of all.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Unfortunately, their arguments are generally specious. Meier's argument in The Marginal Jew is the canonical example, being full of logical holes, disingenuous, and irrelevant. There are no sound reasons to accept the authenticity of the TF. Were that any other passage in any other document (a work of Aristotle's for example), it would undoubtedly be rejected wholesale as an interpolation.

Nevertheless, Vinnie, is correct. The majority of exegetes maintain that the Josephus passage has been worked over by Christians, not that the whole thing is false. But since the vast majority of exegetes are oath-sworn to Jesus' historical existence, their opinion is worth little on this matter.


Your comment does not answer the poster's objection.

....unless, of course, that first century man is a fiction, and the passages of Jesus are interpolations (which they certainly are!)

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Vorkosigan is correct on this issue

This is correct even if for other reasons than you state. What ultimately matters is the arguments behind the opinon (mythicist or HJ) but arguments from authority do have "some" merit. They are not needed here, however and one seriously arguing a position like this should not need to appeal to tbem.

I did not intend to. I agree with the objection. The Gospels are not historically reliable. I was adressing Luke vs Matthews dating of Jesus birth and the lack of a year for Jesus' death.

If you want commentary on the rest:

The lineages of Jesus are found in the Birth narratives.

The birth narratives are not historically relaible and they contradict one another. On an HJ/MJ level I wrote this in number 11 of the Jesus Faq:

Of course I agree there is nothing or only extremely little that is historical in the birth narratives (general time frame and the names of Jesus' parents).

As far as the Passion accounts those are largely non-historical as well. The brute fact of crucifixion emerges, possibly all by its lonesome. The accounts of Jesus' death are not strict--reliable straighforward history accounts. Extremely little can be affirmed on historical grounds as having occured. THis does not mean we can prove all it didn't but when lacking positive evidence for something we are forced to lack belief in it.

[quote]....unless, of course, that first century man is a fiction, and the passages of Jesus are interpolations (which they certainly are!)[quote]

The TF might be (though you know i tend to ddoubt this) but not the shorter one. It is special pleading unless you can provide some prima facie reasons for viewing it as one?

Vinnie